That is disgusting. The act, not the sentence.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I agree that it's disgusting, but it sure seems inconsistent. Legally is abortion OK or not? Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
I would say both are. (EDIT : to Kwea)
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Not by kicking and punching it isn't. And not with a minor.
Posted by reader (Member # 3888) on :
I'm definitely against abortion, and I do think that what he did was horrible, but a life sentence?!? That seems way too extreme.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>This isn't abortion. Abortion involves a doctor and medicine. What happened here isn't any better than the coathanger method that was used before abortion was legalized.
As long as you have a professional, then?
This is a very twisted ruling.
Posted by reader (Member # 3888) on :
I'm not saying it's better than the coathanger method - what I'm saying is that getting a life sentence for doing something that is NOT considered murder according to law (because otherwise, it wouldn't be legal) makes absolutely no sense. In otherwise, it's not the destruction itself here that's being penalized, because the methods that professionals use for abortion aren't necessarily any easier on the fetus. So penalize him to the extent that he would be penalized for kicking a minor and causing her an injury, with some extra punishment added in for the fact the fetus died, but a life sentence?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Not by kicking and punching it isn't. And not with a minor.
This is not completely true. Minors are allowed to have pregnancie -- it happens all the time.
quote:This isn't abortion. Abortion involves a doctor and medicine. What happened here isn't any better than the coathanger method that was used before abortion was legalized.
Then wouldn't it be more appropriate to charge him with practicing medicine without a license?
This was an abortion. They purposely aborted the pregnancy.
edit: I see you already answered my question.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Kicking and punching is assault. In some states killing an unborn child without being a doctor is murder. It would be like slitting the throat of someone and saying you were just trying to give them a face lift.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Kicking and punching is assault.
Not necessarily. I get kicked and punched all the time at the dojo and it's not assault.
I don't see how you can assault somebody with their consent.
quote:It would be like slitting the throat of someone and saying you were just trying to give them a face lift.
No it wouldn't, since the intent of slittling a throat is not the same as the intent of a face lift.
The kicking and punching had the exact same intent as a medical abortion -- the abortion of the pregnancy.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
Ah, good old Lufkin, Texas. I grew up in the town right next to Lufkin. I should ask my parents what they've heard about this case.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
But abortion isn't legally not considered murder. At least not as I understand. The current status as far as I understand it (which may not be far at all) is that abortion can't be legislated against because doing so would violate the privacy rights associated with pregnancy. Again, I could be totally off-base on that, but that's my understanding of it. The action of another person not acting in say a priviledged medical relationship is not covered by these rights and can thus be legislated against. At least in my legal fantasy world it can.
Posted by Ginol_Enam (Member # 7070) on :
quote:Erica Basoria acknowledged asking Flores to help end her pregnancy. But the 17-year-old can't be prosecuted because of her legal right to abortion.
So its legal to carry out an illegal abortion so long as its in your own body? The girl requested the guy help her abort it, and she moved it along, too (I assume the punching did something...?). I should think she's just as guilty as he is...
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I'm wondering who told on him. Were there witnesses? She could have easily taken the blame for it, since she's immune.
-Katarain
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Not sure I understand why she didn’t get charged with murder like he was
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Because the laws make it legal to have an abortion, but illegal to end the life of someone else's unborn baby. Legally, she's innocent. The laws are idiotic.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
She wasn’t having an abortion.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Texas is a state that makes a distinction between legal abortion and murder of the unborn (AFAIK). The law is worded in such a way that it makes it illegal to kill an unborn child unless you are the mother or a medical doctor acting with the mother's consent (pretty standard wording). The point is to be able to prosecute cases of people killing pregnant women as a double murder, etc. I think the law is being misapplied here. But under the wording of the law, I think he is technically guilty.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
I think KQ is right.
In any case, I think mandatory minimum sentences are a really really bad idea.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
This is actually one of the points I brought up when these types of laws began getting passed.
Everyone told me I was crazy. I didn't thin of this exact situation, but I brought up alll these issues arguing AGAINST that type of law.
What do you bet that they try to use this case a fodder to ban abortions again. ;(
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Well, I'll bet that was part of the intention of the law in the fist place. SCOTUS has made abortion legal, but people in places like Texas are trying to do everything to get around it as much as they can.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Wait, how can he be charged with murder if legally they are calling it an abortion? If legally it's an abortion, he should be charged with what, practicing medicine without a license?
If they are calling it murder, then she needs to be in jail as well. The whole thing is stupid, and the law is ridiculous, and the two of them are incredibly stupid to do that. There's a whole lot of stupid going on here.
Plus part of me is just angry in general that the man is in jail for life while the woman gets off free.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I think what they’re doing is separate for each one. Wonder if they could get her with the practicing medicine without a license thing.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
From what KQ said, in TX it's only (legally) an abortion if you do it yourself or if you are a doctor going it. Anybody else, and it's something else (legally).
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well then she didn't technically have an abortion, and she should be charged as well. Certainly she's an accessory to murder, or harming a fetus, whatever the charge is. She should be charged as well.
But I don't think either one of them deserve so harsh a punishment.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
No -- if you do it yourself, then it's an abortion. Legally.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am against abortion, and I don't either.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
So if the baby would have been born already and they killed it what do you think their punishment should be for each of them?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Jay, I like your non-political self , but I won't discuss political issues with you.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well then if it is an abortion how can they charge him with murder, unless legally they are calling abortion murder...
This sounds like a good case to take to the Supreme Court to challenge the legality of the law passed in Texas.
Posted by Dragon (Member # 3670) on :
quote:Because prosecutors declined to seek the death penalty in the case
Who were the prosecutors? Seems like everyone involved wanted it to happen (except the unborn children of course).
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
But you’re against abortion so we agree. Guess I just was wondering if anyone would think a life sentence for killing a new born would be too harsh and hear their reasoning. I really do like to hear reason for why people think the way they do. Helps make things make more sense.
Posted by Lord Solar Macharius (Member # 7775) on :
From link:
"The defense contended that Basoria punched herself while Flores was stepping on her, making it impossible to tell who killed the twins."
If there is reasonable doubt, isn't life a little harsh?
On Jay's issue, does anyone know what stage the fetus was at? If it's early enough, I'm fine with abortion (as all I see is potential). If they (it was going to be twins) had motor activity, then it's murder in my book.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Could someone please explain to me the constitutional provision they think makes this conviction unconstitutional?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Cruel and unusual punishment. Life for an abortion?
And shouldn't there be something to the fact that the article says they don't know for sure who did it? They can't say "Well we aren't sure, so let's put him away just to make sure."
At the very least it sounds like he should have an appeal.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Cruel and unusual punishment.
This doesn't refer to how applicable the punishment is to the crime. If it's cruel and unusual, then it's always cruel and unusual.
quote:They can't say "Well we aren't sure, so let's put him away just to make sure."
He was convicted, so legally there isn't any doubt anymore.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
He might have an appeal on issues of proof, especially on the jury instructions related to how sure they had to be that his blows killed the child. But that wouldn't be a constitutional issue, and it wouldn't implicate the constitutionality of the law.
As for cruel and unusual punishment, they've upheld 50 years to life for a shoplifter. This one doesn't have a chance.
Posted by johnsonweed (Member # 8114) on :
Wow, I'm at a loss.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
From what I understood when these laws were being debated, what happened here is exactly what was intended to happen under these laws.
The law can't take away what has been granted by the Supreme Court - the right for a woman to voluntarily end her pregnancy through a legal abortion, so the mother apparently cannot be charged. But assaulting a pregnant woman in a manner that causes her to lose miscarry her fetus (in this case twins) is a crime punishable under the fetal protection laws.
Doesn't matter if SHE consented - the fetuses are the victims here, they didn't consent to being stepped on and killed. In my opinion, they should both be charged with two counts of murder, but since under the law the pregnant woman is protected, they can't charge her.
If he was so "helpful" why didn't he take her to a clinic where the pregnancy could be ended in a legal manner?
Posted by Dragon (Member # 3670) on :
Wait, so a fetus is protected from being stepped on and killed but they can't protest being killed by a doctor? That doesn't make any sense!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It doesn't make sense, but it does make sense why the laws are like they are. The lawmakers in TX want abortion illegal, but they aren't able to. But they can make things that are close to abortion illegal.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I didn't say it made sense. But I do believe that what happened to this teen is what was intended to happen under the fetal protection law.
None of it makes sense. If it's a crime for this boyfriend to help a girl end her pregnancy why is it legal for a doctor to do so? If a fetus is a life that deserves protection (and a life sentence for "harming" them sure makes it sound like the law values them as it does a person) the why is it legal to terminate pregnancies in abortion clinics?
It absolutely doesn't make sense.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It does make sense within it's own framework:
Roe v. Wade and Casey said that the State has an interest in the continued life and protection of an unborn child. However, Casey said that this interest does not become compelling until the moment of viability. Until that point, the mother's right to control her own body supercedes. Part of that right is the right to obtain medical help in terminating the pregnancy. After viability, the state has an interest and can bar abortions as long as exceptions are made for particular cases where the mother's interest again becomes preeminent.
Many people misinterpret that analysis and think it means that the state has no interest in protecting fetuses prior to viability. This is not so. Both Roe and Casey affirm the state's interest prior to that point; they simply place another interest above it.
That interest guarantees the right to obtain an abortion from a medical provider without an undue burden being placed on the exercise of that right.
That's it. The boyfriend has no interest that supercede's the state's interest. And the mother has no right to the assistance of a non-medical person in terminating the pregnancy.
Therefore, no right has been violated by sending this guy to prison for life.
By the way, the article doesn't say there is doubt about who killed the child. It says the defense contended that there was doubt.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I can't help but think that in a very sad way, this is a victory for pro-choice people in Texas.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
*bows to Dag's superior knowledge and ability to express it in terms I can understand*
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
My problem with the law is with the mandatory sentence, not the criminalization of this particular act.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Maybe it all makes sense legally.
But it's still wrong.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
Personally I am against most cases of abortion, but as long as it remains legal what this guy did should be too.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Hey Dag, (note, I’m not trying to stir the pot here, just really asking a logical question) is there anything that talks about it having to be a legal abortion? Meaning the mother has to go to a doctor in order to abort the baby. I can understand people arguing for abortion rights, even if I don’t agree with that, but I always thought it was to stop backroom abortions. I guess I’m really confused on how she is protected.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Does anyone have a link to the actual text of the law he was prosecuted under?
I'm curious to see if abortion is defined. If it's just the act of terminating a pregnancy then what he did shouldn't constitute murder, but abortion, which should change the charge against him.
There seems to be no real intelligence behind the lines being drawn here. A doctor can do it, but a boyfriend can't (which I agree with from a logical standpoint, but not in this case, legally). The mother doesn't need the doctor, she's allowed to terminate it herself, but even after making the choice to do it, if someone else helps her, it's murder.
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
Cases like this are exactly why I'm a member of the ACLU. The things this guy did were stupid and despicable, and the things being done to him are, imho, really awful as well. Nobody wants to defend scum, so the ACLU is necessary. I really hope they get involved in this. The US policy regarding abortion is inconsistent as it is, but you would think they would at least attempt to hide it better than this. One person should not go to prison for life for doing what another person could do for an insurance company check. Should he be punished? Maybe. Should he be thrown away like a mass murderer? Not a chance.
Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
To me it sounds more like assault and manslaughter. I think a life sentence is nuts.
10 to 15, maybe even 20, but not life.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:The US policy regarding abortion is inconsistent as it is, but you would think they would at least attempt to hide it better than this.
Why would they? The people that made this law think that the prohibition against illegalizing abortion is wrong. Why would they want to be consistent with something they view as wrong?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Does the law violate the 14th amendment?
The 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law, but what if the law itself seperates people into two categories, some with certain rights that others are denied?
If two people commit one crime, they should both receive the same punishment.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:is there anything that talks about it having to be a legal abortion? Meaning the mother has to go to a doctor in order to abort the baby.
Most of these laws state that the exemptions to this law are the mother herself or a doctor acting with the mother's consent and on her behalf, or something like that. That's how they exempt doctors who preform abortions and women who get them from a doctor, while allowing someone who does the coathanger thing or something with the result that both mother and baby die to be prosecuted for two murders (not to mention people who beat their pregnant wife to death). I've never heard of it being used in a case like this before, though, where it was apparently with the mother's consent (although how much a teenage girl knows about this stuff, I don't know) and there was apparently no lasting harm to the mother (as far as we know, again).
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:The people that made this law think that the prohibition against illegalizing abortion is wrong.
*tries to figure out triple negative*
*develops headache*
*gives up*
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Is it not logical that if a fetus is a human life, that someone who knowingly aborts it must be guilty of premeditated murder, which carries the very strictest penalties? Why, to someone who is pro-life, should someone like this kid or this girl be any less culpable under the law for aborting their fetus than they would be if they murdered their baby after it was born?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Because Federal law currently says that abortion is a right of the mother, at least before the fetus is viable outside her body. So she can't be prosecuted for her choice.
I just wish she had had safer options-- of any kind.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well then Texas state law violates Federal law, at least in spirit. It's calling the termination of a fetus murder, unless the mother wants it to happen. Whereas Federal law says it isn't murder. Doesn't that contradiction have any legal rammifications?
Posted by jh (Member # 7727) on :
Why didn't she just go to a doctor? That could've avoided this whole mess.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Federal law says that abortion by a doctor, within certain parameters, with the consent of the mother or, if she is unable to make a decision, out of medical necessity, is not considered murder, and that a mother has a right to terminate a pregnancy (again, within certain bounds). Texas law does not violate those parameters-- it just specifies that anything outside of them can be, under certain circumstances, considered murder. Most people preforming home abortions are not going to be prosecuted, because it usually doesn't come to police attention. If they were, it would probably be for practicing medicine without a license-- abortion is a medical procedure. I don't know the details of this case, but I'd guess what happened is that the girl ended up in a hospital or at a doctor for her bruises, etc., the story came out, and the DA decided to prosecute, for what reasons, I don't know.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Why didn't she just go to a doctor? That could've avoided this whole mess.
She may not have had access to one other than her family doctor; she may not have wanted her family to know. She is a minor, correct? It wasn't in effect then, but TX just passed a law saying that girls under 18 must have a parent give written consent to get an abortion. I think before that, there was already a parental notification law.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Cases like this are exactly why I'm a member of the ACLU. The things this guy did were stupid and despicable, and the things being done to him are, imho, really awful as well. Nobody wants to defend scum, so the ACLU is necessary. I really hope they get involved in this. The US policy regarding abortion is inconsistent as it is, but you would think they would at least attempt to hide it better than this. One person should not go to prison for life for doing what another person could do for an insurance company check. Should he be punished? Maybe. Should he be thrown away like a mass murderer? Not a chance.
Again, what constitutional provision will the ACLU use here? Punishment is set by the legislature. The Court has already held that proportionality requirements of the 8th Amendment allow a 50-life sentence for shoplifting.
quote:Does the law violate the 14th amendment?
The 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law, but what if the law itself seperates people into two categories, some with certain rights that others are denied?
If two people commit one crime, they should both receive the same punishment.
She didn't commit a crime. He did. If two people watch a child drown when they could easily save her, one the mother and one a stranger, only the mother will go to prison for murder. Relationships matter in the law.
Is it inconsistent? In some ways yes. But, again, the state has an interest in protecting the life of an unborn child. SCOTUS has recognized this even in cases where it has allowed termination by the mother.
I happen to think the balancing act done by SCOTUS is an abomination. But it is consistent to say X is important, but Y is more important.
Remember, these babies were essentially beaten to death. Even if the law eventually allows assisted suicide, it very well might still prohibit someone from beating a willing person to death.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
kq, I said 'should'. I am well aware of what's been posted previously in this thread. Your answer does not answer my question.
To elaborate, I guess I don't understand why some pro-life people in this thread seem to feel the sentence was too harsh for the man. If he beat his [born] child to death, wouldn't you think he deserved life in prison?
I am also curious whether pro-life people feel the woman *should* have been given the same sentence, if the law was just. I am assuming they do, but, hey, you know what you do when you assume, eh?
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
My mother says the local paper headlines have been calling it a "capital murder"
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I am also curious whether pro-life people feel the woman *should* have been given the same sentence, if the law was just. I am assuming they do, but, hey, you know what you do when you assume, eh?
Yes, the law should be such that the woman should face the same possible sentence. And were the law so, I bet the woman's story would have been very different.
I'm against mandatory life without parole in general, for all crimes, unless there's a sentencing determination of some kind. This law doesn't appear to have the same grading that manslaughter/murder laws have, and I consider that a weakness in the way the law is set up. If there were lesser included offenses, that would serve the purpose. But I can't tell if there are.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I'm "pro-life", in that I'd prefer to err on the side of life since I don't know exactly when it begins.
But I think prosecuting anyone in this case is stupid. They're kids who need help.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Thanks Dag, I tried a few times to say what said, but it kept coming out wrong
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I’d agree that the sentence seems harsh. Especially with what we’re used to. But then I think about abortions being murder of an unborn baby and how we treat murders. Then I think about the violent way they went about this particular abortion. It’s almost nice to see that the baby’s rights for once have been that into account. I do agree that the kids needed help. I doubt he’ll be in jail for life and do hope that they can get themselves straightened out and somehow learn a life lesson.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I'm sure a decade or two in prison will teach him plenty of life lessons that will enable him to be a much more productive member of society when, and if, he gets out.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
As a pro-life person, I absolutely think both of them should be charged, but I understand the law does not allow the girl to be charged.
I think this type of issue is just going to get thornier and thornier. With all the advances in medicine since Roe vs. Wade was originally decided, we now know much, much more about life in the womb. Even people who profess to be pro-choice have told me one on one that they believe the fetus is a living child, and that they would never themselves be able to have an abortion. They just believe the rights of the woman supersede that of the baby.
In cases like this we're starting to see the conflict - if the fetuses are living beings, then it should be a crime to harm them. So in that case, I think the law is a good thing as it protects the rights of the unborn.
However, we run into a quandary - if the fetus deserves protection against a stranger or even their own father, why does it not deserve protection against its own mother? Or from a doctor?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I just don't see that someone raised in a culture where abortion is legal should be prosecuted for murder for "helping" their girlfriend in a case like this. Practicing medicine without a license, yes. Assault, quite possibly.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I agree Belle. It’s very exciting to think that we might be on the road to finally protecting the rights of unborn babies.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Just as a question, if I perform an unsuccessful kidney transplant operation and both people die, Have I committed murder? At best I could only be charged with practicing medicine without a license? Possibly assault, but if they were both willing then how could it be assault?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I bet you’d get manslaughter
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I would say manslaughter as well. While you may not intend to kill them, you've willfully endangered their lives by performing a procedure you're not trained for. I would say practicing medicine without a license would be an additional charge, but not the only one.
Of course everythign I know about the law I learned from watching Law and Order so my view is not something that should be taken as gospel. Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
One way or another this will probably get tied up in appeals court for the next ten years. Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
I dunno, trying to do a kidney transplant without a license suggests either insanity or willfull intent to do harm to me.
"Yes, officer, that is correct. My exgirlfriend needed a new kidney and her new boyfriend offered to donate one, so I just facilitated the process."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm sure a decade or two in prison will teach him plenty of life lessons that will enable him to be a much more productive member of society when, and if, he gets out.
That's a general statement about punishment and criminal justice, not about protection of the life of the unborn.
quote:Just as a question, if I perform an unsuccessful kidney transplant operation and both people die, Have I committed murder? At best I could only be charged with practicing medicine without a license? Possibly assault, but if they were both willing then how could it be assault?
At minimum, it would be negligent homicide. I'd argue it's recklessness, which moves it up to manslaughter, or reckless disregard for the value of human life, which could make it murder 2.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
"I dunno, trying to do a kidney transplant without a license suggests either insanity or willfull intent to do harm to me." Well, it really isn't different than what these two did. Except that in the kidney case they are all actively trying to save a life, and in the abortion case they are actively trying to murder a life. In both cases they have to be a little insane and a little willful to do harm
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
quote:Except that in the kidney case they are all actively trying to save a life
C'mon, nobody sane could actually think that unless that person was a surgeon.
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
, but I won't discuss political issues with you.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)